How can space-time have a gravity well?

This is re-post of a comment I sent to TheMorgile. I’ve been follow his work and found some very enlightening ideas. Though there are some errors in the idea of being squished at the north pole (since the time per rotation is so slow), I have not found any other errors in his work. The concept of gravity is so counter-intuitive since it takes real and observable forces (centripetal and centrifugal forces) and defines one (centrifugal force) as imaginary and the centripetal force as a falling force (hence orbiting objects are constantly “falling” towards the more massive body but never hit due to linear motion perpendicular to the “falling” direction – ok…right). The “attractive” nature of gravity is only to change direction but no force is applied. It’s so bizarre and without any relationship to the real world, you have to wonder how we accepted the concept in the first place. However it seems that Newtonian mechanics have so many flaws that Relativity was needed to fix the issues. So is gravity due to Newtonian laws or Relativity or QM or………

Here is a video trying to describe gravity via QM / Relativity by having objects on a flat, elastic surface and the mass of the object causing a depression. This depression then causes objects to “fall” towards the depression. Huh? So space is bent in one direction which happens to be underneath and the linear motion of the smaller object is in perpetual motion since it never loses velocity and therefore stays in orbit. Are we really believing this stuff? What about the space *above” the well? What direction does that go in? Or to the left and right? I’ve seen some images trying to deal with this absurdity.

In this image, gravity sucks in space rather than pushes it away. Because space has three directions, you would get a distorted cube, not a sphere. In any event, even this image flies in the face of the scientific consensus.

I did the equations for centrifugal and centripetal force at the equator and north pole. In the spinning ball model, the spin of the earth between the two locations only reduces the centrifugal force by a few Newtons per kilogram because the time for one rotation takes so long. However, the entire basis of gravity *requires* action-at-distance which is absurd. Anything which is not tethered to the ground will experience lift due to the spin. The heavier the object the greater the centrifugal force (as well as the faster the rpm). It’s like spinning on a merry-go-round. Centripetal force can only take affect if the object is attached to the spinning body (like a hammer throw). I calculated that anything greater than 330kg at the equator will float off the surface of the earth due to the centrifugal force https://eternalworldorder.com/2015/07/10/a-discrepancy-in-the-use-of-the-centripetal-force/. This obviously does not happen.

During the debate (and as Newtonian mechanics started to fall apart) the last refuge for gravity became quantum mechanics. If you look at all images for the warping of space time, you see a sphere pushing down on a flat surface. The warp is supposed to cause a well underneath which is supposed to cause the object to fall towards the heavier object (but the original velocity of the smaller object keeps it from hitting the larger object). But this is an incomplete image even if you accepted the model. Since space is all around the object in 360 degrees it should be a gravity sphere *not* a well. If fact, the concept of a event horizon for black holes is incomplete since it should be a black sphere. A massive gravity sphere should surround the object. This would cause light to never reach any object through space since all objects have a gravity sphere surrounding them. The Sun should have all its light bent and distorted as it leaves the Sun and as it enters the Earths gravity sphere. All light would be scattered and undefined. This also is not the case.

Also, as it *must* be a sphere then in what direction is this warp? It makes no sense once you take “space-time” out of a flat plane and into spheres. It’s kind of ironic that the basis of Einstein’s theory sees space as a flat plane and the surface is warped.

To me this invalidates quantum mechanics as having any relationship to space or the actions of bodies in so space. Let me know your thoughts. Good work by the way.

3 thoughts on “How can space-time have a gravity well?”

I see you don’t monetize your website, don’t waste your traffic, you can earn extra cash every month.
You can use the best adsense alternative for any type of website (they approve all websites), for more info simply search in gooogle: boorfe’s tips monetize your
website

Can’t believe I’m wasting my time with this but… You’re a fucking idiot. Take R^3 with standard basis. It’s symmetric space is in spherical coordinates. Thus mass pulls other mass in on every point of its surface, whose super-set is always a sphere… Moron